Poll: What Killed The 30+ Hour Single-Player Campaign?

[QUOTE="MrYaotubo"] What shooters and action adventures had 30h campaigns? RTS I´ll give you that,but that´s still the case now,so it yhasn´t changed,and aside from maybe Mario games,I can´t think of a single platformer that was that long(heck,even SMW took me way less than that to beat). Unless you´re talking about 100% a game,wich in that case,even now you have plenty that pass the 30h mark if you do that,otherwise no,that never was the norm.ChubbyGuy40

It's hard to give a concrete answer, as not only do people complete things at different speeds, but are we counting 100% completion or just getting through the main story? The Arkham games take a lot of time to complete. Zelda games are also action-adventure. All the Super Mario 3D platformers took a long time to complete as well. It took me awhile to beat SS3 with a buddy, but I don't know the exact time it took. Definitely longer than today's 8 hour mark, if even that. RAGE had a lengthy campaign imo. Took me about 15 to clear it. Human Revolution also took awhile, and that's an FPS/RPG mix. I heard STALKER has a very good campaign that lasts a long time.

Production costs I guess though outside of RPGs, I can't remember many games that had 30+ hour campaign before this gen.

Most games did not have 20 hour campaigns. More like 10 - 12.

A lot of basement dwelling nerds prefer isolated single player gaming experiences, and multiplayer has taken away from this since a lot casuals have social lives, and they want to keep them. It only make sense for for developers to cater to this. We can't take it anymore, and we're not going to take. Let's spread our wrath throughout the internet! Roar!

Good thread, I wonder the same thing myself from time to time, but I believe it is a combination of things and not just one aspect.

For starters it is much more expensive to make a game now and it requires larger dev teams, in order to make a long single player game it will be costly. Secondly multiplayer is all the rage right now, which isn't a bad thing in it's self but not every game needs multiplayer to be good.

Though unfortunately I know several people who won't even give a game a chance because it doesn't have multiplayer, it makes me shake my head when I see people only play the MP portion and not even touch the SP.

But sometimes you can be surprised, Uncharted MP turned out to be amazing and it didn't take away from the awesome SP either, but that's because it was Naughty Dog and not everyone is as talented as they are.

Also here is something no one realises. All the kids who played games in the past are now adults. As adults we don't have time to sit around and play 30 hours all the time, we have obligations.

Shorter games means we can actually finish our games, though I suppose I could be wrong as Skyrim is very popular and very long. Though the important thing to bear in mind is that quality > quantity, would you rather have a great game that lasts only 10-12 hours? Or a boring game that lasts 40+ hours?

Longer length doesn't make a game nesseccarily better. Quality is always more important. Also I love playing with my friends and nothing can beat that, so MP is good.

Production values. Plain and simple.

Yeah,but see,that´s the thing,most of the games you mentioned are fairly recent(or current gen),wich somewhat invalidates the whole point of the thread tbh. Games like DX HR or Stalker are a mix of RPG as well,and in that genre those games were always longer than others,and that hasn´t changed.MrYaotubo

The thread has to do with long single-player campaigns being the norm, or perceived majority. It doesn't mean why did that suddenly stop at the beginning of this gen. I think a lot of games were never designed to take as long as some people think they took. In fact some games even rewarded you for completing the game in mere hours. You were new to the genre, or game, didn't know what to do or kept dying, and therefor the game took much longer to complete. Companies recognized this and changed it to allow even casuals to progress without much difficulty, and that's the issue. While the hardcore or even core are completing it in mere hours, so are the "casuals."

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor is the emergence of online multiplayer in consoles, despite how much of it is copy-pasted garbage. Funny how the games people want multiplayer in are some of the best single-player games. Not only that, but the games that they say needed a better single-player (or have a single-player at all,) are some of the best multiplayer games.

You killed it TC.

Because a lot of those 30 hour games just were padded filler. Making a good solid 8-10 campaign that you'll want to beat 2-3 times is way more fun that a 30 hour padded campaign.chaotzu

[QUOTE="chaotzu"]Because a lot of those 30 hour games just were padded filler. Making a good solid 8-10 campaign that you'll want to beat 2-3 times is way more fun that a 30 hour padded campaign.bobbetybob

I don't know what you're talking about, nothing 'killed' the 30+ hour campaign. That was never the norm for games outside of certain RPGs and hybrids, most action - adventure games / action - stealth, 3rd person shooters, etc. are below 20 hours, most below 15.

There are countless examples i could make of critically acclaimed games in the genres above that are below 15 hours from the PS1 era foward. Hell most 4th generation games take a few hours to complete. Most shmups take 30 min. to a hour to complete. And the genres in which there's 30 + hours of gameplay are still the norm. RPGs and most strategy games, sandbox games.. maybe a few racing games aswell.

Probably gamers.

Gamers in general don't change buying habits whether a game series makes a positive or negative change.

Developers probably noticed.

When were the 30+ hours long campaings an average in non-RPG games? :?

Far Cry 3 single player should last around 25 hours and then u have all the side quests to complete.

...there has never been such a thing as a 30 hour single player except in rpgs...I can remember it taking only a few hours to beat nes, snes, and genesis games...

I've spent 20-30 hours on loads of single player games this gen....Bioshock,Bioshock 2,all the Assassins Creeds,both Batman games,GTA 4 and the expansions,Rage,Darksiders,Infamous 1/2,L.A.Noire,Deus Ex:HR,Castlevania:LOS,Mass Effect 2 and there are more I have'nt got round to yet like Mass Effect 3,Red Dead Redemption,Darksiders 2,Resident Evil 6 Etc.I don't see a problem.

Well, my favourite series still have big campaigns. My main Skyrim character is currently close to 400 hours and i still have dozens of side quests to do (same happened with Oblivion). I played each Mass Effect game campaign for more than 150 hours. Rockstar games are also huge.

The developers just stopped caring about and replaced 10 hour of SP campaign for a MP campaign.

Multiplayer, greedy publishers and DLC

Metal Gear Solid 4

Metal Gear Solid 4

RageQuitter69

When was 30+ hours the norm again? Maybe in your dreams, or you think repeating the same levels because you die is new content. Really, unless you played a lot of RPG's 30 hours was never the norm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6f6P5Ceuc4&

SaltyMeatballs

Production Values, Game development costs

More devs figured out how padded those kinds of games are. Too many people put the length of a game on a pedestal. The Witcher is 40+ hours, but a lot of that is padded through chore work. That's not exactly good game design, and nor do I think it's respecting the players time. jg4xchamp

Exponentially increasing budgets lead to shorter SP's

and

Online gaming gaining more popularity lead to a shift of resources in favor of MP over SP

Uhm what? I mean besides some JRPG when did we ever have 30+ hour campaigns? I believe the norm was between 8-12 hours some years ago and now it's not uncommon for regualr gamers to blaze through the SP campaign in a CoD game within 6 hours.

I wouldn't say "long" games are dead. I mean we still have games such as GTA, Skyrim and other more open world games that can take a long time to finish. We also have various other RPGs and JRPGs along with RTS games that usually take quite some time to finish.

Sure a game such as Mass Effect could've been longer, but on the same time the product we got is *usually* considered top notch.

I'd say there's a healthy mix. CoD might feature a short SP campaign, but the overall production value is great for those who buys it since it feature either a zombie mode or co-op missions along with a healthy, meaty multiplayer mode. In fact I'd go as far as to say that some developers have started to give us MORE than we had before. Just take a look at Uncharted 1, no co-op and no MP and then Uncharted 2 -> good SP, co-op AND multiplayer. Sure MP doesn't always work out well, but ultimately it gives us an experience we wouldn't have had otherwise and most of the time it doesn't affect the SP part of the game.

Exponentially increasing budgets lead to shorter SP's

and

Online gaming gaining more popularity lead to a shift of resources in favor of MP over SP

SuperFlakeman

If SP disappears from gaming, so must I...

Uhm what? I mean besides some JRPG when did we ever have 30+ hour campaigns? I believe the norm was between 8-12 hours some years ago and now it's not uncommon for regualr gamers to blaze through the SP campaign in a CoD game within 6 hours.

I wouldn't say "long" games are dead. I mean we still have games such as GTA, Skyrim and other more open world games that can take a long time to finish. We also have various other RPGs and JRPGs along with RTS games that usually take quite some time to finish.

Sure a game such as Mass Effect could've been longer, but on the same time the product we got is *usually* considered top notch.

I'd say there's a healthy mix. CoD might feature a short SP campaign, but the overall production value is great for those who buys it since it feature either a zombie mode or co-op missions along with a healthy, meaty multiplayer mode. In fact I'd go as far as to say that some developers have started to give us MORE than we had before. Just take a look at Uncharted 1, no co-op and no MP and then Uncharted 2 -> good SP, co-op AND multiplayer. Sure MP doesn't always work out well, but ultimately it gives us an experience we wouldn't have had otherwise and most of the time it doesn't affect the SP part of the game.

danish-death

What game was 30+ hours?GhettoBlastin92

Time, money, DLC opportunities, plus gamers don't necessarily want longer games anymore. Times have changed in the videogame market. Why make a 40+ hour game when an -8 hour game will outsell it. People want blood, shooting, and graphics, not long stories anymore.

Why create a 30 hour campain when you can slap a few multiplayer maps together and call it a day.

[QUOTE="RageQuitter69"]

Metal Gear Solid 4

mstrchf12

what did it? did gamers interests change, or is it something else?

black_chamber99

Multiplayer.

The length of games hasn't really changed much, if anything they've become longer. FPSes are short, but they have always been fairly short, and now there's multiplayer to get more out of games.

RPGs got less popular. That's all.

There are still plenty of single player games that can last you that long. RPG's, some action adventure titles, etc. 30 hours games are not the norm and they never were. If anything games have been getting longer and more of the content is actual quality content, as opposed to 2 hours of content being made into 10 by cheap deaths, limited lives, no checkpoints, and very basic mechanics.

I'd also like to add that length really doesn't mean much and some of the best old single player games are only around 10-15 hours. Super Metroid, for example, is maybe 5-10 hours long, and even quicker if you know where you're going.

Honestly, not many games have a good enough single player to keep me around for 30 hours. And that goes for previous generations also. I'm playing Dishonored right now, and I woudn't want it any longer.